Poll: Did the wait for Red Dead Redemption break your tiny mind?

[D_987]

Holy fucking hell man give it up. You're not even arguing your own point, someone said "Wild West GTA? I really don't see the appeal. But I'm sure it's a good game, that's what everyone keeps saying anyway." then King of the Sandbox pointed out a few of the things that make RDR unique,

No, he didn't - and once again you prove you can't seem to fathom the concept of reasoned debate...

First and foremost he mentioned small, unassuming changes that really only suit the fact the game was centralised around the Wild West as opposed to a modern city. I'll put it in a way I think you'll be able to understand, basically, imagine Fallout 3. Now imagine Fallout 3 with an 80's theme instead of the 30's they were trying to go for. It's the same game, but there are significant cosmetic difference - that's the big difference here.

and you start spouting off about how "core gameplay is cut and paste" like suddenly that's the argument here and not that the GAMES ARE COMPLETELY EFFING DIFFERENT - even tho it's still 3rd person, there's still guns, there's still the sandbox gameplay, and there's still good guys and bad guys. Sure, why not? TONS of games have those elements. But the whole feel of the game is changed. Try it before trying to make such generalizations. It's a dishonor to RDR to be putting the "GTA Western" label on it.

Again, you don't (having not played GTA IV your opinion is completely invalid anyway) seem to understand the way these games play. Just because there are cosmetic changes, and a number of contextual gameplay changes, doesn't stop the core game playing identically - not the fact it's a third person shooter - again mis-interpreting my point - but rather the feel of the game, the way it plays, and the overall structure. The point being that it's a GTA-clone in the sense that it's a very similar game, created with the same engine.

You seem to be making up random ideas, claiming I've said things I haven't, and just basically making yourself look like a fool. Continue this if you must, but you seem to have let the point, and therefore the argument, slip away from you.

 

[Programmed_For_Damage]

It wasn't even a blip on my radar until I started reading consistently high reviews from various sources. I'm now going to have to check it out.

 

[King of the Sandbox]

But that's like saying most sandbox games are cut and paste of eachother. For example would you say that GTA and Infamous are cut and paste, with the addition of special powers. I'll be honest, I haven't played a GTA since 3 but the core gameplay really hasn't changed all that much - and I would never ever say RDR is a copy and paste of GTA.

If you haven't played GTA IV you can't really compare them, so I'm not really sure why I'm even replying - your opinion is pretty much worth nothing...

Just the setting alone means the gameplay mechanics can't be the same. You can't shoot horses and have them explode some nearby enemies. In fact, I don't think anything really explodes. No grenades or assault rifles. No tanks or choppers. Most people carry guns so if you were to try and steal a horse, expect to get shot at. Or you can try to get a wild horse, but then you have to lasso it and break it. You can do treasure hunting with some really vague treasure maps.

So your argument is as paper-thin as the other persons - the core mechanics are extremely similar to GTA IV in that your character controls, the way cover "feels", the mission structure - the very core of the game is pretty much GTA IV-styled, because that's the way Rockstar do things. Driving a tank isn't a core part of GTA (to name an example you mentioned above)

Just yesterday I had to herd some cattle. Now, maybe if this whole game took place in a city based in the western era you could have a point, but most towns aren't more than a few buildings huddled together and the rest of it is vaste planes and canyons and the like. In that respect it's far, far more like Fallout 3 than GTA.

Again, you're looking far to much into the areas rather than the core mechanics - to the point in which this paragraph is completely pointless...

Some mechanics are similar, some things are borrowed, but the game is still different in nature. I mean you can argue semantics all you want, you could start calling BC2 a pure MW2 ripoff - excuse me, "copy and paste".

If you'd played the two you'd know they (MW2 and BC2) "feel" completely different - likewise the style of play and character movement are extremely different - this point has...no relevance.

You could call Fallout 3 and Mass Effect copy and paste games. You could call FIFA and NHL games copy and paste.

No, you couldn't - not sure where you got those ideas from.

But you'd be wrong. Similarities do not equate to being copy and pasted ripoffs.

You completely missed my point entirely and went off on a tangent - you don't seem to understand exactly what you're arguing about in the first place.

Holy fucking hell man give it up. You're not even arguing your own point, someone said "Wild West GTA? I really don't see the appeal. But I'm sure it's a good game, that's what everyone keeps saying anyway." then King of the Sandbox pointed out a few of the things that make RDR unique, and you start spouting off about how "core gameplay is cut and paste" like suddenly that's the argument here and not that the GAMES ARE COMPLETELY EFFING DIFFERENT - even tho it's still 3rd person, there's still guns, there's still the sandbox gameplay, and there's still good guys and bad guys. Sure, why not? TONS of games have those elements. But the whole feel of the game is changed. Try it before trying to make such generalizations. It's a dishonor to RDR to be putting the "GTA Western" label on it.

He's a good troll. Just ignore him. It's their only weakness.

 

[Dante18907]

**SETTLING THE DEBATE**

What one of you (I don't care enough to find out who) is saying is that at its base, it is as he says 'A GTA IV clone' which seeing as the mechanics are not new and neither is the engine which it runs on, and by these standings he is correct. The game runs on RAGE, as did GTA IV, there are minor tweaks to the graphics and controls etc etc but they are basically the refinements that come with the development of the engine.

This is on a completely different level to all the additions on top of the core, stuff like the mini-games and gambling and horse mechanics etc etc. These are just icing on the games cake. These are what set the game apart from GTA IV, while it remains at it's very core, the same mechanics.

So to a degree he is correct. And honestly, since it is an open world game made by Rockstar, the is FUCK ALL CHANCE IN HELL that this won't be compared to GTA IV or labelled as a 'Western GTA IV' that's just how things are done, it's easier for people to hear 'Western GTA IV' than it is to listen/read a spiel about the exact setting/minutia of the game.

There's honestly no reason to get so upset about it, it's just how some people who has less of their interest vested into the game perceive it. Yeah, I don't like the fact that it's compared to GTA IV, but honestly, it was always going to be, the same way that the next open world game they make, be it GTA or some new IP will inevitably be compared to one or both of these games and invariably labelled as a GTA/RDR clone if it is a new IP.

Now lets be civil since all this is settled.

 

[gigastrike]

...I didn't even know the game existed until I saw the commercials...and I still don't care about it now that I know about it.

 

[neilsaccount]

I enjoy waiting for a game but don't you think you may be taking it a tad excessively?